AA Board: Good or Bad?

In the end, after all is said and done, one has to decide where one plants one's flag, and no matter what concerns I may have about evangelicals, I can't stand with Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Cynthia McKinney, Jimmy Carter and the rest.

Eh, it's complicated - the short version is that while I have some concerns about the consequences of affirmative action, I have not once seen an argument that focuses on these concerns rather than on the spurious excuses - "merit", "equality of opportunity", "color-blindness", "blacks do worse in law school" - for being mean-spirited in the face of personal disappointment.

I should add that there are very compelling arguments for race-based AA, and that it is not a straightforward matter of choosing what is "right", but of what is better given the alternatives that one is faced with.

In the end, after all is said and done, one has to decide where one plants one's flag, and no matter what concerns I may have about AA, I can't stand with Googler, breadboy, fincavigia and the rest.

Well I'm sure most people have figured this out by now, but I think the arguments that AA is a disservice to minorities is, generally speaking overblown. I don't know many minorities in law school who are in danger of failing out. Sure, there are a handful, just as there are a handful of whites in law school who are on the very bottom of the curve.And although AA may be benefitting some people who don't "deserve" it (I have seen this, at least, when it comes to summer jobs), it is also benefitting many people who would not have the opportunity to otherwise compete, e.g. poor people. And despite what seems to be the popular perception ... there ARE poor people in law school (including myself.)

Eh, it's complicated - the short version is that while I have some concerns about the consequences of affirmative action, I have not once seen an argument that focuses on these concerns rather than on the spurious excuses - "merit", "equality of opportunity", "color-blindness", "blacks do worse in law school" - for being mean-spirited in the face of personal disappointment.

I'm curious as to what consequences you are refering. Are you speaking about backlash? I think considering backlash as a motivating social factor makes for a tough argument and I hear it in AA as much as I do in discussions surrounding date rape. I'd like to hear more about this, but I realize it's tough for people to hold complicated views that might be seen as contrarian to orthodoxy within certain intellectual circles as it's far too easy to be branded by oversimplifications of your position. Then again, you don't seem to be afraid of ruffling a few feathers.

Logged

redemption

Well, for one thing there is a very large discrepancy in LSAT performance between, say, African Americans and Whites, and this (surely?) after accounting for schools, economic status, and the rest of it - hundreds of whites score above 170, for example, and only slightly more than a couple of handful of African Americans do so.

Is the LSAT just a test or is it indicative of a sort-of educational readiness? I think that, with the exception of games, that it is the latter. So that the disparities in LSAT scores likely reflect differences in readiness - in the ability to understand arguments, to read text etc.

There are causes for this that should probably be addressed at some point, and AA turns attention away from these causes, which is probably not a good thing. In fact, it's probably a really bad thing.

Another thing that one notices is that it is a blunt instrument in an unusual way. It seems to me that candidates of international origin - Ethiopians, Ghanaians, Nigerians, W-Islanders - are the ones that benefit in the greatest numbers from race-based AA, especially at the higher-ranked schools - and it's not clear to me that they face - on average - quite the same, specifically "race-correlated" circumstances that African Americans do, either before or after law school.

So you have a situation where future generations of African Americans are paying for a policy that is intended to redress institutional racism againt the present generation of African Americans, but it turns out that a significant plurality (maybe a majority?) of the beneficiaries are from another group altogether. It seems, in the aggregate and at the level of public policy, like a lose-lose proposition to me.

Obviously, the response to this concern would be to say that there's no effective difference between the race-effect faced by an Ethiopian, Nigerian, Haitian and black American. Maybe, although I personally don't buy it.

Logged

finally

Well, for one thing there is a very large discrepancy in LSAT performance between, say, African Americans and Whites, and this (surely?) after accounting for schools, economic status, and the rest of it - hundreds of whites score above 170, for example, and only slightly more than a couple of handful of African Americans do so.

Is the LSAT just a test or is it indicative of a sort-of educational readiness? I think that, with the exception of games, that it is the latter. So that the disparities in LSAT scores likely reflect differences in readiness - in the ability to understand arguments, to read text etc.

There are causes for this that should probably be addressed at some point, and AA turns attention away from these causes, which is probably not a good thing. In fact, it's probably a really bad thing.

Another thing that one notices is that it is a blunt instrument in an unusual way. It seems to me that candidates of international origin - Ethiopians, Ghanaians, Nigerians, W-Islanders - are the ones that benefit in the greatest numbers from race-based AA, especially at the higher-ranked schools - and it's not clear to me that they face - on average - quite the same, specifically "race-correlated" circumstances that African Americans do, either before or after law school.

So you have a situation where future generations of African Americans are paying for a policy that is intended to redress institutional racism againt the present generation of African Americans, but it turns out that a significant plurality (maybe a majority?) of the beneficiaries are from another group altogether. It seems, in the aggregate and at the level of public policy, like a lose-lose proposition to me.

Obviously, the response to this concern would be to say that there's no effective difference between the race-effect faced by an Ethiopian, Nigerian, Haitian and black American. Maybe, although I personally don't buy it.

Wow, red, you've certainly raised some points that I have never even considered in the AA debate. That's cool

Logged

redemption

the majority of blacks I've met in college have been of no more than one generation away from Africa. yes, they are the ones who need AA to get into law school? or maybe, according to the logic behind AA, we should make a specific point that it must be ONLY for those whose GRANDPARENTS were in america? hmmmmm?

the majority of blacks I've met in college have been of no more than one generation away from Africa. yes, they are the ones who need AA to get into law school? or maybe, according to the logic behind AA, we should make a specific point that it must be ONLY for those whose GRANDPARENTS were in america? hmmmmm?

You woudn't recognize logic if it gave you a blow-job.

my lsat seems to differ with your opinion. besides the logic is pretty sound: how in the world can the arguments for AA be expanded to immigrant Nigerians more than immigrant Vietnamese?

the majority of blacks I've met in college have been of no more than one generation away from Africa. yes, they are the ones who need AA to get into law school? or maybe, according to the logic behind AA, we should make a specific point that it must be ONLY for those whose GRANDPARENTS were in america? hmmmmm?

You woudn't recognize logic if it gave you a blow-job.

So it turns out that logic is a Cambodian named Sovann. Who knew?

If I ever sober up, I may respond to some points, or think about them, or well, this is all moot, no?

the majority of blacks I've met in college have been of no more than one generation away from Africa. yes, they are the ones who need AA to get into law school? or maybe, according to the logic behind AA, we should make a specific point that it must be ONLY for those whose GRANDPARENTS were in america? hmmmmm?

You woudn't recognize logic if it gave you a blow-job.

my lsat seems to differ with your opinion. besides the logic is pretty sound: how in the world can the arguments for AA be expanded to immigrant Nigerians more than immigrant Vietnamese?